All i'm saying is for all the specs, my eyes do not care. The difference between a VCD or SVCD is definitely noticeable in quality as compressing 4.7 or more gigs onto 700-800 makes for a huge loss due to the compression, and its a loss that I can definitely see. Put either HD formats and put them next to a dvd and i honestly do not care enough to pay for the minute difference that i actually see.
HD is for true videophiles with outstanding eyesight and people who need to compensate it for insecurity would seem.
Actually, gotta revise what i said, they WOULD do so for all the money in the world. Or even just more money than they are getting now advocating BluRay =).
That's a statement I wouldn't agree with until the HDDVD players are no longer on the shelves. Personally I do not find the difference between HD-DVD/BluRay and regular DVD's so I won't be caring much until this all dies down and HD video disc players are thrown in for free with purchase of a large pizza.
These companies know the power of posturing, and Blu-Ray advocates certainly won't be saying "HD-DVD JUST MIGHT COME BACK" for all the money in the world.
Well, probably because of the fact that many would see it as $30mil to be able to look for planet-destroying rocks from outer space, and then watch as said rock slams into us as what the hell do we do about it currently =).
If theres a viable "... Then blows the offending chunk of matter into its constituent atoms" support system, then yeah crank em out.
Try to put those tasks on paper in an algorithmic form, the founding fathers did and this is where the US ended up. It's not that they had a bad idea, its simply that in terms of humanity there is rarely a condition with only a binary set of solutions or "valid" reactions (no matter how much media groups and marketers wants you to think this way, and by "valid" i mean the kind where you hear the why's of what someone did and you say "i can see that.."). Subjectivity is the root reason for governments to exists, and is also the root reason that any government can have its influence subverted or diverted given powerful enough interest groups.
Moderate taxation isn't a problem, heavy taxation to support social programs is. And choosing between these relative qualifiers is pretty much the reason governments exist. Or at least, the major reason governments should exist =).
Warner throws behind Blu-Ray, Retailers put HD-DVD stock on sale in response, manufacturers continue supplying to demand, suddenly HD-DVD has the significant market base, studios make play of "providing for the needs of all their customers", more expensive blu-ray dies over a long agonizing period.
The iPod is where the money is at., and Apple has (rightly) refused an RIAA tax on it. Yeah, it takes a group as screwed up as the canadian government to come up with something like that.
Unless they somehow show that the asteroid just happened to slam into a planetful of sick, dying, and/or dead dinosaurs =)
I mean, just because someone has died of the flu doesn't mean I cant shoot them in the face with my revolver once they're gone.
Not saying this is likely, just that its somewhat possible, and may apply to a certain degree (IE: perhaps not all species were so harshly impacted by this need, or adapted quickly enough).
NAGIX: That should get the relay working again. All right, Earthlings, if you'll step over this way we'll erase your memories and get you back to Earth. Oh, excuse me. This is Nagix. Uh huh. Oh no. Oh no, really? And it's, it's for sure? All right, I'll break the news to everyone. No, no I, I understand. Thanks. Well, you kids can go back to Earth if you want, but I'm afraid it won't be there for long. The show's been cancelled.
KYLE: What?? Who cancelled us?
NAGIX: The universal network heads. They say the Earthlings have become aware of the show, so it won't be funny anymore.
That or the mind simply discards dreams that form with completely un-relatable neurons firing.
I'd hate to think of having such a mechanism for threat preparation that kept stored every single permutation of variables possible. Granted we do not truely understand how the brain organizes and stores its data, but having a specific point of probability where a dream becomes memorable or not definitely sounds like efficiency in action not failure of the system.
thats exactly what i mean, except it'd be the inverse. That'd work fine as legislation, how would they keep all the content for non-american audiences that is just as accessible on a foreign server from being as prevalent as it now. I don't have anything to back this up as its just conjecture, but i think in terms of internet content that would make for a drop in the bucket.
out of curiousity, do you happen to know if video content purchased through itunes carries closed captioning data by default?
keep this in mind too though, the internet is global, and as we've mentioned repeatedly on/. the USA doesn't legislate to the ENTIRE world yet. Although i see this as a good thing in general, it does also mean that the good ideas aren't universal either.
Plus there could be lobbyists. One thing the industry might fear would be an inversion of the current process where many copyrighted internet broadcasts are only available to American subnets, but not to the wider world. If captioning internet broadcast was legislated, they would have to be able to enforce having non-captioned material on foreign servers from playing to American IPs. Which would be seen as censorship, because technically it would be.
if you didn't get from context that that was an onomatopoeia then you would be too stupid to have used dictionary.com in the first place, which incidentally also lists it as having an onomatopoeia variant.
seriously, thats the weakest backpedal in the history of man, but it certainly was amusing enough to continue to bite.
Look, I know I cannot understand the frustrations you deal with not being hearing impaired myself. But you're blaming the wrong dog.
Closed captioning allows persons with hearing disabilities to have access to television programming by displaying the audio portion of a television program as text on the television screen. Beginning in July 1993, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) required all analog television receivers with screens 13 inches or larger sold or manufactured in the United States to contain built-in decoder circuitry to display closed captioning. Beginning July 1, 2002, the FCC also required that digital television (DTV) receivers include closed captioning display capability.
In 1996, Congress required video programming distributors (cable operators, broadcasters, satellite distributors, and other multi-channel video programming distributors) to close caption their television programs. In 1997, the FCC set a transition schedule requiring distributors to provide an increasing amount of captioned programming, as summarized below. If the FCC had put the onus on the CREATORS of the content from the start, then there would be a reason to expect them to have their changes follow suit when releasing content directly to the internet. The problem is the onus has been on the DISTRIBUTORS not the creators of the content to have them closed captions.
The writers of content are not the ones held responsible for the closed captioning of their transcripts. Don't you notice those message saying "Closed captioning by: ". If they wish to move a significant amount of their content, once it begins in earnest they would have to find a solution to not having standardized CC or face this exact issue.
It's just not in the realm of their focus until theres a significant portion releasing their creations via the internet. I'm not saying it makes your point incorrect that this makes internet solutions near useless for your situation, just that its a matter of what distribution maintains a "mainstream" status.
Slashdot Mirror
All i'm saying is for all the specs, my eyes do not care. The difference between a VCD or SVCD is definitely noticeable in quality as compressing 4.7 or more gigs onto 700-800 makes for a huge loss due to the compression, and its a loss that I can definitely see. Put either HD formats and put them next to a dvd and i honestly do not care enough to pay for the minute difference that i actually see.
HD is for true videophiles with outstanding eyesight and people who need to compensate it for insecurity would seem.
Sah! I demand satisfaction!.......AKIMBO!
Actually, gotta revise what i said, they WOULD do so for all the money in the world. Or even just more money than they are getting now advocating BluRay =).
All i'm saying is the root of all reasons you postulated is the fact that perspectives are subjective.
"For sure"
That's a statement I wouldn't agree with until the HDDVD players are no longer on the shelves. Personally I do not find the difference between HD-DVD/BluRay and regular DVD's so I won't be caring much until this all dies down and HD video disc players are thrown in for free with purchase of a large pizza.
These companies know the power of posturing, and Blu-Ray advocates certainly won't be saying "HD-DVD JUST MIGHT COME BACK" for all the money in the world.
Well, probably because of the fact that many would see it as $30mil to be able to look for planet-destroying rocks from outer space, and then watch as said rock slams into us as what the hell do we do about it currently =).
If theres a viable "... Then blows the offending chunk of matter into its constituent atoms" support system, then yeah crank em out.
Try to put those tasks on paper in an algorithmic form, the founding fathers did and this is where the US ended up. It's not that they had a bad idea, its simply that in terms of humanity there is rarely a condition with only a binary set of solutions or "valid" reactions (no matter how much media groups and marketers wants you to think this way, and by "valid" i mean the kind where you hear the why's of what someone did and you say "i can see that.."). Subjectivity is the root reason for governments to exists, and is also the root reason that any government can have its influence subverted or diverted given powerful enough interest groups.
sucks.
Exactly. Talk is cheap, and there is NO way the current agreements on paper are not finite.
Now that would be a fun situation.
Warner throws behind Blu-Ray, Retailers put HD-DVD stock on sale in response, manufacturers continue supplying to demand, suddenly HD-DVD has the significant market base, studios make play of "providing for the needs of all their customers", more expensive blu-ray dies over a long agonizing period.
Conjecture without caffeine is wacky.
Unless they somehow show that the asteroid just happened to slam into a planetful of sick, dying, and/or dead dinosaurs =)
I mean, just because someone has died of the flu doesn't mean I cant shoot them in the face with my revolver once they're gone.
Not saying this is likely, just that its somewhat possible, and may apply to a certain degree (IE: perhaps not all species were so harshly impacted by this need, or adapted quickly enough).
KYLE: What?? Who cancelled us?
NAGIX: The universal network heads. They say the Earthlings have become aware of the show, so it won't be funny anymore.
STAN: Oh shit, did we do that? ahh southpark.
Adobe...LESS....evil...than something..
head....ASPLODE..AUUUUUUUUGHHHH!
Choleraspermbot: Hey baby, wanna neuter all humans?
Next Up on the party's list: The Orgasm.
Or it started with the negative dreams, and has now prepared him to face the threat of performing poorly when able to have sex with Jessica Alba.
That or the mind simply discards dreams that form with completely un-relatable neurons firing.
I'd hate to think of having such a mechanism for threat preparation that kept stored every single permutation of variables possible. Granted we do not truely understand how the brain organizes and stores its data, but having a specific point of probability where a dream becomes memorable or not definitely sounds like efficiency in action not failure of the system.
Just remember this, your whole hang up about four characters is completely and utterly batshit retarded. Grow up mayhaps?
End of story.
Diggity.
I'm actually rather curious now as to whether this is already the case in some respects heh.
thats exactly what i mean, except it'd be the inverse. That'd work fine as legislation, how would they keep all the content for non-american audiences that is just as accessible on a foreign server from being as prevalent as it now. I don't have anything to back this up as its just conjecture, but i think in terms of internet content that would make for a drop in the bucket.
out of curiousity, do you happen to know if video content purchased through itunes carries closed captioning data by default?
yeah the end result IS the same.
/. the USA doesn't legislate to the ENTIRE world yet. Although i see this as a good thing in general, it does also mean that the good ideas aren't universal either.
keep this in mind too though, the internet is global, and as we've mentioned repeatedly on
Plus there could be lobbyists. One thing the industry might fear would be an inversion of the current process where many copyrighted internet broadcasts are only available to American subnets, but not to the wider world. If captioning internet broadcast was legislated, they would have to be able to enforce having non-captioned material on foreign servers from playing to American IPs. Which would be seen as censorship, because technically it would be.
man, humanity makes my head hurt.
if you didn't get from context that that was an onomatopoeia then you would be too stupid to have used dictionary.com in the first place, which incidentally also lists it as having an onomatopoeia variant.
seriously, thats the weakest backpedal in the history of man, but it certainly was amusing enough to continue to bite.
In 1996, Congress required video programming distributors (cable operators, broadcasters, satellite distributors, and other multi-channel video programming distributors) to close caption their television programs. In 1997, the FCC set a transition schedule requiring distributors to provide an increasing amount of captioned programming, as summarized below. If the FCC had put the onus on the CREATORS of the content from the start, then there would be a reason to expect them to have their changes follow suit when releasing content directly to the internet. The problem is the onus has been on the DISTRIBUTORS not the creators of the content to have them closed captions.
Source: http://ftp.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/closedcaption.html
You're right to be angry, but i just think you're angry at the wrong people.
The writers of content are not the ones held responsible for the closed captioning of their transcripts. Don't you notice those message saying "Closed captioning by: ". If they wish to move a significant amount of their content, once it begins in earnest they would have to find a solution to not having standardized CC or face this exact issue.
It's just not in the realm of their focus until theres a significant portion releasing their creations via the internet. I'm not saying it makes your point incorrect that this makes internet solutions near useless for your situation, just that its a matter of what distribution maintains a "mainstream" status.